Tuesday, May 23, 2017

EEEEKK! Russia!

Those here old enough to remember the Real Cold War may share with me a certain puzzlement over the current hysteria about Russia. Yes, they hacked our 1916 election (to what effect we don't know). Yes, the mighty nuisance Donald Trump made a Russia reset one of his campaign point (for what purpose we don't know). And yes, Congress and the Justice Department should look into the hacking and the possible collusion between Trump's campaign aides and Russian somebodies (that this may come to nothing, or nothing criminal, is possible but not likely). And then, of course, there's Ukraine, the Crimea, and Russian saber-rattling in its Near European neighbors. So there is cause for concern. Add to that the hot breath of the media (including responsible media) blowing up an anti-Russian storm.

Robert Hunter, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, raises some pointed questions about all of this: "The Foreign Policy Price of Trump's Russia Scandal" at LobLog. Long but readable. Not wonky. Points to some undiplomatic and inartful moves during the G.W. Bush and Obama Administrations. What do you make of all of this?

17 comments:

I agree with the author in everything except his assertion that the US will survive Trump. The republic in its habits and principles, checks and balances, may have already passed away. But Trump throws everything out of calibration and by hacking the US election, Putin may have plenty of unintended consequences with which to deal. How can a sensible Russia policy be crafted in this chaos?

Ironically, Donald Trump has shown a better understanding of the need for a new, mutually acceptable basis for relations with the Russian Federation than did either George W. Bush or Barack Obama. His valuable instinct, however, is now being buried beneath the fundamental debate about his presidency, which is feeding so much of the Russia scandal, in major part for US domestic political reasons. In this context, the interests of the United States and the West are clearly losing out.

Even if we grant that Donald Trump has had a "valuable insight" about needing a new approach to a relationship with Russia, has Trump showed any signs that he is capable of forging such a new relationship? Every indication is that he is the most incompetent person ever to occupy the White House and seems to have little grasp (and little interest) in the American form of government. Every schoolchild (at least in my generation) was taught that the genius of the founders was to institute a government with "checked and balances." Trump's take is, "It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” He doesn't seem to understand his role as president. He shows more regard for Putin than he does for members of his own government. He would be more comfortable as president if he could make the US an oligarchy, and then Putin could be a fellow oligarch. He is about the last American on earth I would trust to forge a new relationship with Russia.

Trump has hardly shown any understanding of Russia. But the need for a new basis for relations is pretty obvious unless we're onto another Cold War and nuclear confrontation. What would that consist in? Don't know. But clearly the U.S. and Russia have some common interests, containing terrorism is one of them. The Russians have Chechnyans in ISIS just as the West has Libyans, Tunisians, etc.

Trump is incapable, but why the hysteria in the press and among our politicians? Maybe I'm mistaken in seeing a similarity to the "Real Cold War."

Russia is not that much of an economic or military threat, but it could become an important ally or spoiler in all the relationships above. Stalin was our ally against Hitler; Putin may be bad, but he is not Stalin.

We could end up with a series of threats from one or more of the terrorists with China and Russia encouraging them on. How is this to be avoided?

Old George H. W. used to drive me up a wall about a lot of things, but he understood foreign relations. That can't be said about any of his four successors, including W.J. Clinton to whom Hunter all but gives a pass. George W. attempted a reset with Russia because Clinton rolled NATO up to almost the Wehrmacht's high water mark of 1941. Of course, that was going to tick off the Russkis.

So W. gazed into Putin's eyes and saw something. But eye-gazing didn't work, so Obama tried for a reset. Anyone who was surprised that Putin wouldn't give up the Ukraine without fight ought to be punished; Obama was punished. His "reset" didn't work, either. The fact that Clinton and W. gave Putin good reason to be ticked off, though, does not detract from the facts that he IS an authoritarian, he wishes us no good and he has been interfering in our elections and our lives.

And, Jack, them Rooskis has got the A-bomb.

The notion that I, Trump has what it takes to change all that history is as laughable as his discovery that peace in the Middle Easy may not be as hard as "people" have told him.

One thing that's being left out in Trump's decision to cosy up to China and Russia and Saudi Arabia is their stance on human tights and civil rights. Basically they are all dictatorships that crush whatever gets in the way. All Trump cares about is money and power, so his foreign policy will always be skewed.

I thought it was an interesting article. It was totally a huge deal that Russia intervened in our elections and if Trump had any sense he would have expressed shock and outrage at it rather than denial. And as the beneficiary of that meddling, he should not have been so eager to, out of the box, establish a new special relationship with Russia. The optics are terrible.

I know we do our own meddling in other nations' internal affairs, so can't cry foul too loudly, but there is a difference if the very people leading our government today actively helped Russia with this (or knew about it and did nothing to stop it).

It seems like the area where the President can act most unilaterally without checks from Congress is in the area of foreign affairs. And ironically, here where the President has the most power, most Americans could care less about. And Trump may well have interesting ideas on Russia, but he doesn't seem in general to have complex or nuanced ideas about that or anything, and he doesn't seem to listen to the people who work for him or the career public servants who might be able to do this thinking for him.

I believe the ambassador when he talks about how this scandal sets back foreign affairs, I wonder, though, how many Americans will even notice.

Putin is getting bigger muscles, and he is scarier than the old Soviets, IMO. He grabbed the Crimea and barged into Syria. It was suggested that in the latter case, he could have a quelling effect on Assad, which looks laughable in retrospect. He meddled in our election and joked about knowing more about the meeting between Trump and Kislyak/Lavrov than any if us do. Russia is an emerging menace.

I don't know how much power and influence Rex Tillerson has over Trump or foreign policy.

Lobe is entirely silent about exactly what Trump's instincts and ideas about Russia actually are, and that's where his whole essay crumbles. He's asking us to calm down and pay more attention without indicating what there is to pay attention to.

He does make two good points:

1. In our haste to blame Russian interference for Trump's election, we are forgetting Hillary Clinton's own poor performance as a campaigner.

2. Some of our policies have left Russia feeling besieged re countries in the former Eastern Bloc. Lobe might have also pointed out that when Russia was in "Chapter 11," we did very little to help.

So Russia has emerged from its near-collapse as an oligarchy/kleptocracy with a dirty-tricks expert and member of the former KGB at the helm. I suppose we've dealt with worse regimes in the past, but never one this big or with so much fire power.

Running around screaming, "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" isn't going to help anything. But Trump's incompetence as a communicator is not helping. The man can't lead, guide, persuade, or craft a coherent sentence.

I'm tempted to agree with everybody here. Russia is a loose cannon with Putin at the sights. Not only is he out to re-establish Russia as a Great Power, he presides over a major kleptocracy that operates as a criminal enterprise in the West, including the U.S. (where I think Trump has been entangled with loans, etc.).

I thought Obama's efforts at reset to China was a good move, but hasn't worked. His feeble effort to lower the commitment to the ME will never take root with Trump pledging loyalty to Saudi Arabia and the Sunis.

So yes, it's a mess. But it would be helpful if some cooler heads, in the media, in Congress, and in public discussions weren't such Chicken Littles running around shouting the "sky is falling."

One of the evil things about Putin is that he's a fossil fuel promoter. I think of him as a fourth Koch brother. Russia is an oligarchy, and, like this country, has too many eager to become serfs. Putin is supposed to have an 80% popularity rating. Nevertheless, arrogant hot shots in the US government have aggressively pushed against the Russians. Some pushback was inevitable.

So, I'm a local in some Russian place and a guy with a clipboard comes up and asks me to rate Putin's performance. Do I assume (a) he's some college kid picking up a few bucks for beer by taking the poll, which probably is for a legitimate polling operation; or b) he an FSB hood, and my answer had better suit Mr. Putin himself?